Update task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: omitted fields are preserved (partial update), body/labels are whole replacements, and empty-string assignee unassigns. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or what happens when the task is not found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mutable-field summary, followed by the partial-update rule and the unassign edge case. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers replacement semantics, partial updates, and the unassign sentinel well. Missing pieces are error behavior and return shape, which are secondary but non-trivial for a write tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 80%, so baseline is 3; the description adds the collective semantic that only supplied fields are mutated, which the per-property schema text does not state. The empty-string unassign hint is echoed from the schema, so marginal extra value there.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (task) plus the exact fields mutable: title, body, labels, assignee. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_task, delete_task, and move_task, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Fields left out stay as they are' implies this is the partial-update tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing away from move_task for lane changes or delete_task for removal. Usage is inferred from the name and field list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.